Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010271912025 2025:GAU-AS:16985-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7016/2025 HOIPI HAOKIP W/O- THANGCHON HAOKIP, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HAOKIP VENG, P.O.AND P.S. POROMPAT, DISTRICT- IMPHAL EAST, MANIPUR, PIN- 795005, AT PRESENT POSTAL ADDRESS KEITHELMANBI, KANGPOKPI DISTRICT, P.O. KALAPAHAR, PIN- 795122. VERSUS 1.NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED (NEDFI) AND ANR, NEDFI HOUSE, GANESHGURI, G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 6, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM. 2:THE REGISTRAR THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA 9 OLD POST OFFICE STREET, 7TH FLOOR KOLKATA -700001 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Mahendra Singh, Advocate. : Mr. S. Upadhyay, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Das, Advocate for respondent No.1/NEDFI. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 09.12.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. N. Mahendra Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. G. Das, learned Advocate for respondent Page No.# 2/6 No.1/Financial Corporation. 2. The respondent No.1/Financial Corporation had filed an application (O.A. No.316/2018) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (in short, “Tribunal”) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to be as “RDB Act of 1993”) for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs.1,85,92,866/- only against all the defendants including the petitioner herein, jointly and severally with pendente lite and future interest, as per the contractual rate till the realization along with the cost and other reliefs. 3. The Tribunal with a reasoned judgment held that the respondent Corporation had been able to make out a case that the defendants including the petitioner herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount, stated above, and hence, issued Recovery Certificate accordingly for the afore-noted amount in favour of the respondent Corporation against the petitioner and others. 4. The judgment was passed on contest. However, later, the petitioner herein claiming that he was impersonated and that he had never participated in the proceedings, filed an application [EDRT Dy No.728/2024(MA)]) under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, CPC) before the Tribunal for setting aside/rescinding the judgment of the Tribunal along with an application (I.A. No.625/2024) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, explaining the cause of delay in preferring such application under Order Page No.# 3/6 IX Rule 13 of the CPC. 5. The Tribunal, vide order dated 11.06.2025 observed that the records revealed that the applicant/borrower/petitioner herein had availed financial assistance from the respondent Corporation, which had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing application under Section 19 of the RDB Act of 1993, which was allowed on contest. The Tribunal noted that the judgment was passed on 08.09.2022 in the absence of the defendants including the petitioner herein but the certified copy of the judgment was applied for on 08.07.2024, which was handed over to the counsel for the present petitioner on 15.07.2024. The Tribunal also discussed the grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay but did not agree to condone the delay for accepting/ entertaining any application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on the ground that the petitioner/applicant therein had knowledge about date of the judgment, which was passed on 08.09.2022 and that the applicant/ petitioner herein had appeared in that case and also had filed written statement, which meant that the petitioner had full knowledge about the case but was negligent in appearing in the matter. 6. After giving sufficient time, the Tribunal had pronounced the judgment and such an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed after more than 2(two) years. Page No.# 4/6 Thus, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. 7. The petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short, “Appellate Tribunal”), Kolkata, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the condonation application filed by him. The Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 10.11.2025 passed in Regular Appeal Dy. No.864/2025, has insisted for a pre-deposit of 50% of Rs.2.2 Crores as a condition for entertaining the appeal, as mandated under Section 21 of the RDB Act of 1993. 8. Mr. N. Mahendra Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that what has been challenged before the Appellate Tribunal is not the judgment regarding determination of the debt liability but the refusal to condone the delay in preferring an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for rescinding the judgment of the Tribunal. He has further submitted that the Tribunal passed the order presuming that the petitioner herein was the borrower, whereas the petitioner claims to have been impersonated by somebody else masquerading him. Thus, he submits, the grounds given by the Tribunal for rejecting the application for condonation of delay was under challenge before the Appellate Tribunal. 9. The pre-deposit requirement under the RDB Act of 1993 does not apply if the appeal is preferred against any interlocutory order; or for refusing the application for condonation of delay; or for refusing an amendment; or for restoration; or for any procedural order. Page No.# 5/6 The provision contained in Section 21 of the RDB Act of 1993 is being extracted herein for the sake of completeness:- “21. Deposit of an amount of debt due, on filing appeal :- Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to be deposited by such amount which shall not be less than twenty-five per cent of the amount of such debt so due to be deposited under this section.” 10. The pre-deposit requirement, it becomes clear from a plain reading of the afore-noted Section, applies only when the order appealed against decides the liability or quantifies the dues. Interlocutory or intermediate orders, like, rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; or rejection of any application for filing additional evidence etc. ought to be exempted from such requirement of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. 11. In several cases the Supreme Court has clarified that Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993 triggers only when there is determination of liability and the embargo does not apply if the appeal is not from a debt determination order. 12. Mr. G. Das, learned Advocate for the Financial Corporation/respondent No.1, however, submits that there was a determination of the liability, holding the petitioner herein as one of the borrowers and, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly rejected the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC along with the application Page No.# 6/6 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which order primarily affirms the determination of the liability against the petitioner here. 13. We find ourselves unable to agree to such a proposition for the reason that the order challenged before the Appellate Tribunal was the rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the Tribunal. 14. The Appellate Tribunal is only required to go through the reasoning given by the Tribunal for rejecting such an application. In that case, it would be unfair to the petitioner to be coerced into making a pre-deposit of 50% of the determined liability, more so, when the petitioner has, in his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC before the Tribunal, claimed to have been impersonated by somebody else. 15. Considering this aspect of the matter, we allow the writ petition, requesting the Appellate Tribunal not to insist for the pre-requisite deposit under Section 21 of the RDB Act of 1993 and hear out the appeal of the petitioner against the order of rejection of the condonation application by the Tribunal. 16. We order accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant